AI and Shared Prosperity
By Katya Klinova, Anton Korinek. 2021
34 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Future advances in AI that automate away human labor may have stark implications for labor markets and inequality. This paper proposes a framework to analyze the effects of specific types of AI systems on the labor market, based on how much labor demand they will create versus displace, while taking into account that productivity gains also make society wealthier and thereby contribute to additional labor demand. This analysis enables ethically-minded companies creating or deploying AI systems as well as researchers and policymakers to take into account the effects of their actions on labor markets and inequality, and therefore to steer progress in AI in a direction that advances shared prosperity and an inclusive economic future for all of humanity.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Health Professions, AI Ethics, Fairness & Society, Social Sciences & Humanities
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Economics and Econometrics
In General Health Professions
In AI Ethics, Fairness & Society
In Social Sciences & Humanities
Citations in the corpus
- GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models (2023, background): “…of automation technologies, including LLMs, has previously been linked to heightened economic disparity and labor disruption, which may give rise to adverse downstream effects (Acemoglu and Restrepo, 2022a; Acemoglu, 2002; Moll et al., 2021; Klinova and Korinek, 2021; Weidinger et al., 2021, 2022).”
- Six Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Grand Challenges (2023, unknown): “Other commentators point to the balance between innovating both for economic prosperity and for ecological longevity (Gupta, 2021, Sept 18; Klinova & Korinek, 2021), although the framers of the AI Act try to address possible constraints on innovation by providing for regulatory “ sandboxes ” that…”